The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: The news of the day; a Newsmaker interview on the North Korea nuclear crisis with President Roh of South Korea; a report from Massachusetts on the budget crunches of local and state governments; a debate over changing the federal rules for media ownership; and a conversation with Nilo Cruz, winner of the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for drama.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: U.S. investigators joined the hunt today for those behind the terror bombings in Saudi Arabia. The attacks killed 34 people, including seven Americans, and sparked U.S. criticism of the Saudis. Ray Suarez narrates our report.

RAY SUAREZ: As an FBI team arrived in Riyadh today to investigate Monday's suicide bombings, there were new reports the Saudi government had ignored U.S. calls for tighter security before the attacks. The Reuters News Service said the Bush administration had dispatched envoy Stephen Hadley to Riyadh last week, to warn the Saudis of an imminent threat. And U.S. Ambassador Robert Jordan said yesterday, his request for more security at foreign housing compounds went unheeded. But the Saudi the ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, said the Saudis did what was needed.

PRINCE BANDAR BIN SULTAN: We cannot, nor can you in the United States of America, guarantee 100 percent nothing will happen when a determined, crazy, evil person is determined to die.

RAY SUAREZ: Today in Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted the kingdom had been helpful, but said that wasn't enough.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Saudi Arabia has provided good cooperation with us on the war on terrorism, but there is more that can be done.

RAY SUAREZ: And at the Justice Department, Attorney General John Ashcroft said he hoped there would be no problems in the investigation.

JOHN ASHCROFT: Saudi Arabia and the United States have worked together, and need to work together, on a continuing basis and an improving basis, to exchange information about how we can devalue the threat or destabilize or disrupt terrorist activity.

RAY SUAREZ: Islamic militants have long complained about the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Last month, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced major cuts in the force based there. But today, he said there are no plans for additional cuts.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. charged two fugitives from Yemen today, with helping plan the attack on the U.S.S. "Cole." Seventeen American sailors were killed in the October 2000 blast. In Washington, Attorney General Ashcroft said the suspects were long-time members of al-Qaida. They were indicted on 50 terrorism counts, including the murders of U.S. nationals and military personnel. They'd been jailed in Yemen, but escaped last month. The Lebanese army announced the arrests of nine men in a terror plot today. The military statement said the group meant to attack the embassy of a major western state, and kidnap Lebanese officials. It was widely reported the target was the U.S. embassy in Beirut. It was unclear if the suspects were linked to al-Qaida. A top terror suspect may be in Kenya, planning a new attack. The head of Kenya's anti-terror force issued that warning today. We have a report from Andrew Vietch of Independent Television News.

ANDREW VIETCH: Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, also known as Harun, is one the FBI'S most wanted list for a string of atrocities. It's claimed he was one of the architects of the bombing of the Israeli-owned Mombassa Hotel in November, which killed more than ten people, and the failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner on the same day. He's been indicated in the states for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Nairobi, which killed more than 200 Kenyans. Security has been increased at foreign diplomatic missions.

CHRIS MURUNGARU, Security Minister, Kenya: Security presence around the area and western interest particularly British and American interests.

ANDREW VIETCH: Harun is described as a top al-Qaida commander. He's a citizen of both Kenya and the islands and speaks more than four languages. It's believed he escaped to Somalia after the November bombings. A Kenyan police source is quoted as saying he may already have returned to Mombassa.

JIM LEHRER: As a precaution, Britain today banned all British commercial flights to and from Kenya. And last night, the U.S. State Department warned Americans against traveling there. U.S. forces seized more than 260 prisoners in a raid in northern Iraq early today. It happened near the city of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown. One of those arrested was on the U.S. most-wanted list, but he was not identified. Most of the others were later released. Separately, the U.S. Central Command announced the arrest of another Ba'ath Party official, number 47 on the most-wanted list. American troops may stay longer in Iraq than first planned, to improve security. The "New York Times" reported today the army has cancelled all departures of the 3rd Infantry Division from Baghdad. In addition, troops from the First Armored Division will be moving in. In Washington, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said it was not some sudden, new decision.

DONALD RUMSFELD: The ground forces are remaining there and judgments as to how many more will be permitted to flow in and what forces may or may not be allowed to flow out would be recommendations from the combatant commander which dick and I would then consider at some point. But at the moment, the intention on the part of the commanders there is to provide security in that country as best as is possible.

JIM LEHRER: The new civilian American administrator in Iraq promised today to restore law and order. At his first news conference, Paul Bremer said thousands of Iraqi police officers were already back on the streets. He blamed the old regime for many of the current security problems.

L. PAUL BREMER: Saddam released some 100,000 prisoners on to the streets last October. Many of these people were political prisoners, but some of them were criminals, violent criminals. It's time these people were put back in jail. That's where we will put them. In the past 48 hours we've arrested about 300 of them.

JIM LEHRER: In southern Iraq today, the British army today turned over the port of Umm Qasr to Iraqi civilian control. It was the first such hand-over since the war ended. Secretary of State Powell said today the United States may soften its demand to lift U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The Bush administration has pressed for an unconditional end to the sanctions. But Russia and France want them suspended, not lifted entirely. Powell visited Russia yesterday. Today, in Bulgaria, he said the U.S. was now willing to consider a suspension. South Korean President Roh said today the U.S. should compromise with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program. In an interview with the NewsHour in Washington, he said, "I think North Korea is using this as a bargaining chip for security guarantees and economic aid." We'll have that interview in just a moment. Israeli forces attacked a village in Gaza today, killing five Palestinians, including two boys. The army said it was searching for Palestinians who fired rockets and mortars on Israeli towns. The Palestinians said the Israelis were trying to undermine international peace efforts. There have been a series of attacks and reprisals this week. China warned today that people who violate quarantine and spread the SARS virus could be executed. That came as the World Health Organization said the outbreak has reached five more Chinese regions. And in Taiwan, health officials reported a new surge in cases. 10,000 people were ordered to stay at home as a precaution. In some cases, police installed video cameras in their homes, to make sure they comply. The U.S. Senate headed toward a final vote this evening on a tax cut plan. It would reduce taxes by a net of $350 billion. The key issue was a Republican amendment to cut dividend taxes by half this year, and suspend them entirely the next three years. The House has already adopted a tax cut package worth $550 billion. Wholesale prices fell in April, due to sharply lower energy costs. The Labor Department reported today the Producer Price Index was down 1.9 percent in April, the most on record. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 65 points to close at 8713. The NASDAQ rose 16 points to close at 1551. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the president of South Korea, budget problems in Massachusetts, changing the media rules, and the Pulitzer winner for drama.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now President Roh Moo-Hyun of South Korea. I spoke with him at Blair House in Washington earlier today.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, welcome.

PRESIDENT ROH (translated): How do you do?

MR. LEHRER: Yesterday after your meeting you and President Bush said that you would not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea. What exactly does that mean?

PRESIDENT ROH: It means that they will not be allowed to repossess the plutonium to make new nuclear weapons, and it also means that if they had produced any nuclear weapons before, they will have to dismantle them.

MR. LEHRER: Do you believe they have nuclear weapons right now?

PRESIDENT ROH: There are many different ideas on that question, but as for the Korean Government's official position, we cannot verify right now. We have not verified it as of yet.

MR. LEHRER: So what are you going to do about it, about finding out about what they do have?

PRESIDENT ROH: On this issue to Korean Government and the United States Government will do everything in their power to verify the intelligence, verify that proposition, and if they--their statement that they have nuclear weapons was made just before the negotiations, so we need to verify whether that statement if true or not, and we will resort to many channels to verify whether they already have nuclear weapons or not.

MR. LEHRER: Let's assume that you are able to verify that they do in fact have such weapons. Then how do you go about getting North Korea to get rid of them?

PRESIDENT ROH: North Korea and the United States are still continuing their negotiations, and I don't think that the door to the trilateral talks has been closed yet. And in the midst of such negotiation efforts, I don't think it's a wise idea to hypothesize the worst case scenario and to talk about what to do about it. And if--and doing so will pour cold water over the negotiation efforts of the parties, and I will be very cautious in saying those words.

MR. LEHRER: Yesterday President Bush said there had been progress. What did he mean by that?

PRESIDENT ROH: Up to this point there have been some media reports about there being some disagreements between Korea and the United States over how to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue, and such media reports have been posing some difficulties in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.

But yesterday President Bush and I agreed on the principle that this matter should be resolved peacefully, and in the course of such efforts we will coordinate closely and incorporate closely with each other, and I think President Bush meant this.

MR. LEHRER: Do you and your fellow citizens of South Korea fear that North Korea might use nuclear weapons against your country sometime?

PRESIDENT ROH: I guess we cannot exclude any possibilities at this point of time, but right now I think North Korea is using this as a bargaining chip to secure guarantees for their securities and to receive economic assistance from the outside world, but there is a possibility that if negotiations don't work out well, they might even export the nuclear weapons they might have. And also if they feel their regime is threatened, then I think they might even use their nuclear weapons that they might have. But however, I don't think that they will use nuclear weapons to preemptively strike South Korea.

MR. LEHRER: North Korea continually says, Mr. President, that they fear the United States, they fear an attack from the United States. Is that justified?

PRESIDENT ROH: I don't think I can judge whether or not that statement can be justified or not, but it is true that they are fearful of the United States, and I am sure that the Iraqi war have increased their fears against the United States.

MR. LEHRER: Because the message they received from the Iraqi war is: "you may be next, North Korea?"

PRESIDENT ROH: Rather than getting the message that they might be next after Iraq, I think theyrealized that they witnessed the tremendous war capabilities of the United States and that's why they are fearful now.

MR. LEHRER: Do you believe this fear helps the situation in terms of solving it peacefully with North Korea or hurts it?

PRESIDENT ROH: I think there is a bigger possibility of this factor being a helpful one towards a peaceful resolution.

MR. LEHRER: Do you believe that the United States, China and others, as well as South Korea, should find ways to give North Korea what it wants in exchange for its dismantling whatever nuclear program it has?

PRESIDENT ROH: It is unpredictable what course of action North Korea will take in the coming days, but no government has a policy that can never be changed -- they can never be unchanged. And depending on the circumstances or conditions, any government's policy can change I think.

And when Korea, China, Japan and the United States offers what North Korea wants, maybe North Korea's attitude may chance in the future, and that is if North Korea receives security guarantees and if it receives an opportunity to reform and open up its economy, then there is a high likelihood that it will be willing to renounce its nuclear program.

MR. LEHRER: I take it you would support that course of action?

PRESIDENT ROH: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: There are some people in the United States who say that would be nuclear blackmail. North Korea says, "We have nuclear weapons. If you don't give us what we want, we will use them." And that's not a way to conduct international relations. How do you respond to that, sir?

PRESIDENT ROH: Yes, I think it is against the moral principles of the international community to relent to any threats, and especially from the United States' perspective it's a matter of pride to bend to North Korea's threats. I understand that. But it is a usual tactic for the negotiating parties to resort to bluffs or exaggerations, and I think it's quite common to arrive at a compromise through giving and taking.

MR. LEHRER: There have been reports, Mr. President, that there are some officials in the U.S. Government--not the President, but others in the high levels of the U.S. Government--who believe the only way North Korea will ever, ever agree to getting rid of its nuclear program is by changing the regime in North Korea. Do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT ROH: I am aware that such opinions exist in the United States, but I don't think it's the official stance adopted by the U.S. Government. And in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue maybe removing the North Korean regime is a possibility, but also making North Korea regime change is a possibility. And South Korea, since removing North Korean regime to resolve this nuclear issue may entail such great risks for South Korea as well, we think it's safer to lead North Korea to reform and open up itself.

I think this is what the United States did to China in helping China to open up in the '70s, and I want this history to be repeated on the Korean Peninsula.

MR. LEHRER: Did you express this belief to President Bush?

PRESIDENT ROH: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: And how did he respond?

PRESIDENT ROH: Well, we had an exchange of views on many, many topics and many subjects, and I don't--I can't really tell on which specific items that we reached agreement on or not, but comprehensively we agreed on the principle of resolving this issue through a peaceful means, and I think President Bush and myself agreed to the foregoing means, the foregoing approach to the North Korean nuclear issue.

MR. LEHRER: Did you specifically ask President Bush to ask his folks to quit talking about a military solution to the problem in North Korea?

PRESIDENT ROH: No, I didn't ask him such a request.

MR. LEHRER: Would it be correct to read your position, however, that this is not helpful when Americans talk about possibly solving this problem militarily?

PRESIDENT ROH: Well, I'll give you a long answer, a long-version answer to the question. Korea has suffered a lot of tribulations and trials over the past several hundreds of years, and our people have been devastated by a war half a century ago. And thanks to the support of the United States and thanks to our own efforts, we have been--we have reached the threshold of prosperity.

Another war on the Korean Peninsula means that we will lose everything that we have achieved so far, and we will revert back to our dire past, and we have not recovered completely from the fratricidal war that happened 50 years ago, and another such war between brothers and sisters will take longer for us to recover from the wounds and we may never fully recover from such a wound.

We want to do everything we can to purse a path to a peaceful resolution, and when we have exhausted all the efforts, then at that point we will consult with the United States on the next course of action.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush has in the pat referred to North Korea as part of an "axis of evil." How do you see North Korea?

PRESIDENT ROH: I think North Korea is insisting on an obsolete regime and the values that it pursues are not in the interest of its people. And its behavior and its demands are not those that can be accepted by the international community. And I--so therefore I don't think North Korea is a partner to be trusted, and I don't agree with its regime.

MR. LEHRER: Do you see a time, however, when North and South Korea will become one again?

PRESIDENT ROH: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: When you look ahead, how long a time will it take to get this done?

PRESIDENT ROH: I think it will take a lot of time, but we will never give up the hope that we will be unified one day. At the time of the President Lincoln, if the United States had been divided into two countries, the South and the North, I'm sure that mistrust and hatred and war and confrontation will be a norm for the United States as well, and the United States would not have achieved the level of prosperity that it is enjoying now.

Likewise, Korea has been divided into two countries, and mistrust of each other and confrontation and hatred of the other have been continuing up to this day, and therefore, even if we need to take more time, we want to achieve unification ultimately.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, thank you very much.

PRESIDENT ROH: Thank you.

SERIES - TOUGH TIMES

JIM LEHRER: Now, another of our reports on how state and local governments are dealing with record budget deficits. Betty Ann Bowser reports from Fall River, Massachusetts.

ANNOUNCER: B-2.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ann Oliveira can barely wait to get to her senior center in Fall River, Massachusetts, everyday. The 76-year-old retired seamstress loves the bingo games and the camaraderie.

SPOKESPERSON: Bingo!

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But the center may be closed when huge cuts in the state budget go through. That's because working-class cities like Fall River, with a low tax base, are more heavily dependant on the state to fund services like the center, than are wealthy tax-rich suburbs. Fall River Mayor Ed Lambert isn't just worried about closing the senior citizens center. The mayor's wondering what's going to happen to the city's 14,000 public school children, who've improved their test scores in the past ten years of educational reform.

TEACHER: How many times did you actually take the weight of that?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: When the state budget cutters are through, Lambert may have to lay-off teachers he says are crucial to the improvements.

MAYOR EDWARD LAMBERT: There'll definitely be an increase in class size. The legislature has reduced the class size reduction grant that Fall River has gotten, which is about $800,000, and that will mean in many classes a class size will balloon up to 30 or more. Education will go on, but not at the same level. And for a city like Fall River, education is the great equalizer for our kids, and that's what really has us concerned.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Like so many states, Massachusetts is having a budget crisis because its revenues have been declining sharply. Tourism is down, the state's investments have floundered on Wall Street. Things have been so bad that the state's had two budget cuts in 18 months, but this third round is the most serious, a $3 billion shortfall. In the two previous rounds, the Fall River Fire Department had to drop 10 percent of its personnel. The police lost 15 percent. Police Chief John Souza is very concerned. He's down 32 officers out of a force of 260, at a time when the state and federal government are asking him to do more for homeland security.

SPOKESMAN: There they are telling us, "get out there and provide for... you know, lets keep the public safe and let's put their fears to rest. And, you know, we need to look at the assets that exist in your communities, and you need to be aware of them assets, and make sure that the security you provide for them is at the higher level." And I said, "how am I going to do this? I don't have the money."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The state's newly elected Republican governor, Mitt Romney, dismisses such talk from city leaders. He says they just need to manage better.

SPOKESMAN: If they're well managed and aggressively work with their employees, they can make ends meet. The state has seen a huge decline in its revenues, and that means that as we pass revenues on to our cities and towns, they're going to have to see some reductions as well.

SPOKESMAN: Any headaches?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: As in most big states, Medicaid is one of the things that is driving the severity of the budget cuts. In Massachusetts, the number of elderly, poor, and mentally ill people needing care has skyrocketed over a period when state revenues declined. So, people in Fall River are also going to be hit by the cuts on a personal level.

SPOKESMAN: I-22.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Seniors will lose prescription drug benefits, there will be fewer drugs covered, and poor people and the elderly on Medicaid will be asked to pick up a larger portion of their medical care.

SPOKESMAN: We have roughly one out of six people in Massachusetts who receive entirely free health care. They don't pay a dollar for a prescription, a hospital visit, or a doctor visit. People are buying cokes and hamburgers and, in some cases, getting cable TV. It seems that when you receive free healthcare, you ought to be able to put down a little bit of money as well.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In the prosperous 1990s, the state cut taxes 40 different times, including the income tax. Massachusetts could raise taxes now, to cover a big part of the deficit. But Governor Romney intends to keep a campaign promise made last year: Not to raise any taxes, especially Massachusetts' flat-income tax.

SPOKESMAN: We think it's very important not to raise taxes on working families or people throughout the commonwealth. We fundamentally don't want to push people into economic crisis because of rising taxes, nor do we want to scare away jobs. Massachusetts is a great place for employers, in part because we're going to keep our tax basis and burden the same.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Democratic speaker of the house Tom Finneran is going along with the governor, because, he says, there's no appetite for a tax increase of any kind.

TOM FINNERAN: The votes simply are not there. I have spoken to the members of the house, and more importantly, they have spoken to me. But these are the grim realities and the necessities that flow from economic realities. There are some people, for example, who have suggested that we undertake borrowing to sort of ease our way out of this. That would be a colossal mistake...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Why?

TOM FINNERAN: ...You don't do that. It's irresponsible. First of all, you're putting off, you're evading your responsibility to address a reality today, and you're evading it by putting it off on younger folks, another generation, downstream. That's not what leaders do.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Fall River's mayor thinks it's the governor and legislature that are acting irresponsibly, for not raises taxes to cover the deficit.

MAYOR EDWARD LAMBERT: Maybe it's the legislature and the governor that doesn't have the appetite. But at some point, this train wreck is going to happen. If this budget gets enacted, those of us responsible at the local level for providing these services will have to deliver this pain. And it's going to be very significant.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is normally an ally of Republican administrations on budget issues. But this time around, he says a tax increase is the only way to avoid cuts in core services.

MICHAEL WIDMER: The cuts are affecting basic services that Massachusetts has provided for decades, if not generations. So I think in the end, we're going to see layoffs in many communities, scores of communities in the state, across the board-- teachers, police, fire, highway employees, librarians. I think there will be thousands and thousands of layoffs over the next 12 to 18 months in the cities and towns of Massachusetts.

DEMONSTRATORS: No more cuts! No more cuts!

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Some of the very people who will lose their jobs, teachers, social workers, police, have been demonstrating at the capitol, demanding that taxes be raised. But the governor and the legislature have given no signal they intend to listen to their pleas.

SERIES - WINNER

JIM LEHRER: Next tonight the third of our conversations with winners of this year's Pulitzer prizes in the arts and to arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown.

JEFFREY BROWN: When Cuban immigrants brought the cigar- making industry to Florida in the 19th century, another tradition came along with it. As workers hand-rolled each cigar, they listened as newspapers and novels were read out loud by a lector, the Spanish word for reader. A major center for the industry was a section of Tampa called Ybor City. It's the setting for this year's Pulitzer Prize winning play, "Anna in the Tropics." Commissioned by the new theater in coral cables, Florida, where it received its only production so far, "Anna" tells the story of factory workers in 1929, who listen to, and lived through, "Anna Karenina," Leo Tolstoy's classic tale of love and adultery in 19th century Russia. The play's author is himself a Cuban-born immigrant, 42-year- old Nilo Cruz. We talked at New York's Public Theater, which produced several of his earlier works.

JEFFREY BROWN: Nilo Cruz, welcome and congratulations.

NILO CRUZ: Thank you very much. Delighted to be here.

JEFFREY BROWN: Your play is about immigrant factory workers, largely illiterate, who come to live through literature. What drew you to that?

NILO CRUZ: I was very intrigued by this group of people, sort of like musicians in my country, too, from Cuba, who sometimes don't know how to read music, but they can actually play music. And so, I was very intrigued by this group of people that came from Cuba in the late 1800s, and started this little city in Tampa called Ybor City. Imagine, some of these workers, they were being read Shakespeare, Ruben Dario, Lope de Vega, all of these authors. So they sometimes could quote Cervantes, and yet they didn't know how to read.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, in your play, they're reading, they're being read to, "Anna Karenina." And they come to live through the characters in that famous novel.

NILO CRUZ: Well, sort of the book becomes a catalyst in the play, and it's sort of that old saying that-- certainly this has happened to me many times, like I've read a book, and it has practically changed my life-- so basically, that's the premise of the play. And how this book changes, or how the book starts to awaken the desire of these cigar workers, how they start... how the book starts reflecting... or actually, how they start reflecting about their own lives through the book that is being read to them.

JEFFREY BROWN: They're, in a sense, small people living out a big story.

NILO CRUZ: Yes, small people with big dreams.

JEFFREY BROWN: Indeed, Cruz, here at a recent reading of his play at the public theater, has seen literature transform his own life. His father was imprisoned in Cuba when Nilo was a child. The family came to Miami when he was nine. Poetry, he says, was always present.

NILO CRUZ: I remember, as a child, that my uncle would all of a sudden, in the middle of a party or something, would break into, he used to break into poetry and would start to read poems by Jose Marti, or people would start singing. You know, everybody made it a point in the old days to learn songs, but more than anything to learn poetry. I remember actually what got me started writing was reading a poem by Emily Dickinson when I was ten years old here in exile, and I remember reading that poem and saying, "I want to do this. I want to write."

JEFFREY BROWN: Really, Emily Dickinson?

NILO CRUZ: Oh, yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, it's interesting you talk about poetry, because you have a very poetic, lyrical style of writing.

NILO CRUZ: Well, I think that you can find poetry everywhere, and I find that common people can say the most poetic things. Children are very poetic when they speak, and I try to capture that poetry in my plays, not only in the spoken language, but also visually.

JEFFREY BROWN: There's a speech, a passage that I circled to show some of that lyricism. Could you read it for us? The character is Conchita?

NILO CRUZ: Oh, yes. She's the character in the book who certainly makes... who identifies with Anna Karenina. Her husband is having an affair. And so, in this scene, she confronts him. And Paloma, which is her husband, says to her that she's taking this a little too far, the fact that she identifies so much with this particular novel. And then she says, "am I? Have you ever heard the voice of someone who is deaf? The voice is crude and ancient because it has no sense of direction or place, because it doesn't hear itself and it doesn't know if anybody else in the world hears it. Sometimes I want to have a long conversation with you like this, like a deaf person, as if I couldn't hear you or myself. But I would just talk and talk and say everything that comes to my mind, like a shell that shouts with the voice of the sea and it doesn't care if anybody hears it. That's how I want to speak to you, and ask you things."

JEFFREY BROWN: It sounds as though you are a person who loves the act of using words, talking to one another, particularly here in a theater.

NILO CRUZ: I see words, I see language for the stage as music. I think language for the stage has to be rhythmic. It has to have the richness that music has. And that's why you see... that's what I do with words in my plays.

JEFFREY BROWN: Cruz directed TV and film star Jimmy Smits in the role of the lector at the public theater's reading of "Anna in the Tropics." Cruz was widely seen as a surprise choice for the Pulitzer. Three-time winner and American theater icon Edward Albee had also been a contender. And this is only the second time a Pulitzer has gone to a play not yet fully staged on Broadway, or elsewhere in New York.

JEFFREY BROWN: I guess that means that the judges just went on the script alone.

NILO CRUZ: They listened to the script. They didn't see it, which is great. This is what this play is all about. They read it, they listened to the words.

JEFFREY BROWN: You are the first Latino to win the prize for drama.

NILO CRUZ: Yes! Isn't it incredible. Isn't it incredible. Well, I mean, I think that this is going to open doors for other Latino writers. And it's going to open doors, not just for Latino writers, for Latino actors. And not only that, you don't know the amount of calls that I've gotten from the Latino community. They feel like they're being represented. It is not just me winning this award, it is the Latino community who's winning it with me. So, I think it's remarkable. As a matter of fact, I go to a diner on the corner of my house, and there are Latinos working there. And when I came in, the day that I won the award, they were so happy, they invited me to lunch that day. They were so happy that I was representing them on the stage.

JEFFREY BROWN: And what happens now for you?

NILO CRUZ: There are so many things that I want to write about, there are so many plays circling me. And I'm anxious to go back to it. And then I feel that I'm honoring this award, because I feel that this award is about, it's recognizing my work... it's almost telling me, "do more, write more." It's not just saying, "oh, there you are at the top now." On the contrary, I think it's telling me, "write more plays, Nilo." And that's what I want to do. I am anxious to get back to my little table and my pencil and write more.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Nilo Cruz, congratulations, and again, thanks for talking with us.

NILO CRUZ: Oh, thank you for having me be part of your program. Gracias.

JIM LEHRER: Nilo Cruz will answer your questions in an online forum that can be visited through pbs.Org.

FOCUS - MEDIA MONOPOLY?

JIM LEHRER: Now media correspondent Terence Smith looks at the sweeping changes proposed in the rules for who owns the media in this country.

TERENCE SMITH: The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote early next month on a sweeping revision of the rules that govern media ownership in the United States. If approved, the proposed new regulations would permit the largest media companies to buy additional properties, expand into new markets, and increase their ownership of print and broadcast outlets in a single city. The proposed changes, the most far-reaching in a generation, were delivered by the FCC staff to the agency's five commissioners this week. Under a proposed new formula, for example, the percentage of local stations that any one network could own-- currently capped at 35 percent of the national audience-- would be sharply increased. A broad alliance of consumer interest groups, independent stations and some newspapers argues that this would lead to further consolidation of the nation's media outlets, more control and fewer corporate heads. Meanwhile, most of the nation's largest media companies do want the rules relaxed or scrapped altogether. As the Commission approaches its scheduled June 2 vote, it is being swamped with public comment: Nearly 20,000 letters and messages so far. The proposed changes have not been officially released, but according to published accounts, they include: Permitting a company to own both a broadcast station and a newspaper in all but the smallest markets; currently such cross-ownership is sharply limited. And permitting a company to own three television stations in a large market; the current limit is two.

Joining me now to discuss this are: Gene Kimmelman, senior director for public policy at the Consumers Union, an independent, non-profit public interest group; and B. Robert Okun, vice president of NBC, who heads the network's Washington office. Welcome to you both. Bob Okun, what's the basic argument for revising these rules?

R. ROBERT OKUN: Well, the media landscape has changed. I mean a number of these rules have been in place since world war ii. Clearly the media landscape has changed. Ten years ago we didn't even measure the Internet. If you look at the average number of channels into the home now, about eighty-nine or ninety on your normal cable system, the number of broadcast stations has increased dramatically. So this is an update of rules that have been on the books for many, many years. The Congress reviewed these rules in 1996 after 60 years they rewrote the Communications Act. They directed the commission that every couple of years you need to take a look at these rules. It's actually three years since the commission got around to doing it. To answer the question why, it's really in order for free over-the-air broadcasting which is what we do for our business to survive. I think Congress said in '96 we want a robust free over-the- air broadcasting system. Now 15 percent of the country does not pay for their television; most pay for their television through cable, through a subscription fee or through Direct TV or Echostar their satellite services. So 15 percent of the country a lot of that in rural America, some of that in urban areas where people just don't feel like paying or can't afford to pay for television. The question is how do we keep this network affiliate relationship which is able to broadcast television free over the air to make it viable? What we're looking for, I think, here, you hear us advocating, is some regulatory relief, just to level the playing field. We're not looking for subsidies but to update these rules so that we can compete. Let me tell you who we have to compete against. It's against our pay providers. That is the cable operators who not only control whether we get on our programs on but also do their own programming as well as satellite providers. So this is a bit of a regulatory parody.

TERENCE SMITH: Gene Kimmelman same question to you. What's the basic argument for preserving these rules as they are?

GENE KIMMELMAN: Bob is right. The media landscape has changed but when you look at the real facts of how ownership of that landscape has changed, you see a startling consolidation with broadcast and cable and across now to satellite with News Cop attempting to buy Direct TV. Here are the key facts. Look at local markets. These rules are predominantly about local markets. Where do consumers get their news and information? 80 percent of consumers say their major source is local broadcast networks and their newspaper. Of all those wonderful broadcast stations, only about half in local markets offer local news. Cable only offers local news from those broadcast stations. It doesn't do its own news broadcast. Some have one channel. Often it's owned by a broadcaster like here in Washington, Channel 7 owns Channel 8. Most communities still only have one newspaper or at best two. And one is dominant. So if you allow combinations of these sources and then allow them to be owned by the large national networks, we have fewer competitors trying to find different angles of presenting consumers news and information. We don't have very many today. We need to make sure we're not diminishing that more.

TERENCE SMITH: What about bob's point about the introduction of the Internet.

GENE KIMMELMAN: The Internet is a wonderful source of news and information. A small percentage of consumers rely upon it. When the FCC asked them where do they go? More than half go to broadcast.com. The next largest segment go to newspaper.com. It's the same sources of news and information using a new technology, a new medium but it is not more diversity of viewpoints, it's not more competition in the media. And the media that provide the news that people rely upon to vote for their mayor, to select city council, to find out whether the garbage collectors are corrupt or not, those sources need to be watching each other to make sure that one isn't providing favoritism to someone it likes or a particular slant on the news. The fewer owners you have, the fewer watchdogs over at media companies we have in local markets. It's truly dangerous for our democratic system should function.

TERENCE SMITH: Bob, what would be the impact of further consolidation on local news, the very issues that gene is talking about?

R. ROBERT OKUN: Well, for example, NBC, which I would argue is the lead network, we own 29 stations so 14 of those are NBC owned and operated stations. And we have the rest are Telemundo states; we acquired Telemundo, which is the second of the Spanish-speaking.

TERENCE SMITH: We should point out that your stations combined reach about 35 percent of the total national audience.

R. ROBERT OKUN: Perhaps we should get into that, what that measure really is. It's quite an arcane measure. It measures the potential reach that one might have base odd market share. It does not measure who is actually watching on an NBC- owned station, be it Telemundo, Spanish speaking or English speaking NBC-owned stations. It's really more like 3 percent of all the audience in the country that is actually watching an NBC station. Bit that is a measurement that we would argue needs to be changed. But in terms of our own stations, it just so happens that our profit motive, that is, we want to be in the business to be profitable and put on good programming, own more TV stations, happens to intersect with the public interest. Let me just mention one. When we own a station, Channel 4 here in Washington D.C., everybody's got a to know Jim Vance and Doreen and Bob the weatherman and George our sportscaster. They have to be integral to the community in order for us to be number one. That's why we sponsor an AIDS walk and the Adams Morgan Day Parade. It turns out on the average on an NBC-owned station we do 30 hours or more of local news and information. And in terms of a network-owned station on average we do 30 percent better than a non-network owned station in terms of local news. So we're in it to be profitable, no question. But in terms of how that profitability intersects with diversity of programming, we would argue we do a heck of a good job, sometimes better than even independent stations.

TERENCE SMITH: Gene Kimmelman, that proposal to raise that cap, that 35 percent of, as you say, the theoretical national audience that you could reach if everybody watched your outlets....

R. ROBERT OKUN: I wish.

TERENCE SMITH:... And not others. The proposal is to raise that at least to 45 percent or maybe more. Take it off altogether. What's wrong with that?

GENE KIMMELMAN: What's wrong with that is that they're a national company. They get a lot of money from national advertising. They produce a... a lot of the networks produce a lot of their own programming now. And they want second runs, third runs, syndication rights to boost their profits. They want the national programming out there. Any one community at any one time on any one day there might be a telephone, a local basketball game, something that people in that community really want to see, something they care about, a local political debate, something they care about. The problem is often the local broadcasters are squeezed by the national networks pressured not to carry local events, things of greater local interest to the community because they want national reach. That's a danger. And when they own multiple stations in those communities, they have every right to make a profit. We want them to make a profit and show better news but often they close a newsroom or they direct all news through one central focal point: One person selecting what is news, what's the slant on news, what stories to run instead of two. When you only have about four stations in a market doing local news, losing that one independent voice matters for diversity for different points of view, they can be as diverse as they want. There's still one owner. If they have one slant they're going to show it in as many ways as often as they want. They have a constitutional right to do that. We just want more choices and more independent players presenting news and information and watching what NBC is doing to make sure it's being straight with the public.

TERENCE SMITH: Bob Okun, if the 35 percent theoretical cap is to too restrictive from your point of view, what's right -- 45, 55? What do you need to achieve the profit and other considerations you were talking about?

R. ROBERT OKUN: Well, I think what has to happen is one needs to remember that the courts have kicked back these rules now to the FCC. The court said the number they had was frankly arbitrary and capricious. The FCC now in this rulemaking which everyone is focused for June 2 has to say what is the econometric underpinnings for the new number that we picked, so far be it from me to suggest what the number should be. I mean, we suggest that there's so much competition out there, so many choices you could probably take the cap off. I don't think that's where the commission is going to go. There are also a lot of constraining, other things going on, whether it's the Congress overseeing this, whether it's the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, making sure there's not too much concentration. There are a lot of countervailing pressures in the system to make sure we're not out of control. Let me just make one quick point though about the network affiliate relationship because we own stations, as I said, NBC has 14 owned stations. We have 200-plus other affiliated stations. We need them. In order for any advertiser to want to advertise on NBC, they want to be sure they're reaching the entire country. What we do is we have a contract with those affiliates. And we give them all of our programming. We give them the Tonight Show, the Today Show, all of our prime time programming. In most cases we give them a check; it's called compensation. What they have to do is go sell advertising. We split the national advertising revenue with them. They're also able to sell local advertising. It's a very good business. We need them. We want this to continue because we want free over-the-air broadcasting to continue. But that's a system that has its gives and takes. In terms of a community that doesn't want to run something and I'll take Salt Lake City for example they don't like running Saturday Night Live. Absolutely fine. We have a contractual agreement with our affiliate to not run programming. Now on the other hand, if they decide that they're coming up short at the end of the month and they need to run something and not run something from the network because they want to capture those local revenues, that's a little different. That's something we might have a beef with.

TERENCE SMITH: Yes, that local basketball game that Gene Kimmelman was talking about.

GENE KIMMELMAN: A lot of the affiliates say they're being squeezed by the networks and being pressured not to carry things of local interest. It does need to be a balance but there's no need for the networks to get larger. The courts kicked this back to the FCC and said you just didn't present us the facts. Go get the facts. The FCC now has the facts. The facts show very clearly that with all the explosion in technology, consolidation has overtaken and clamped down on the major sources of news and information in this country with five companies dominating-- in most local markets even fewer. This is no time to let it become fewer independent voices fighting with each other to present us different angles on news and information. We need more diversity, not less.

R. ROBERT OKUN: Could I just comment on one thing in terms of practically what would happen if the cap were to be removed. Frankly these stations are very expensive. I'm not sure there's going to be a spending spree. The Wall Street Journal was referencing that as it sort of canvassed the various companies and what they might do. I think from our perspective by us acquiring Telemundo, for example, the second of the two Spanish speaking networks we have used the resource of NBC to strengthen that. We would probably want to strengthen that network so we would have a national network for the second Spanish-speaking network. So different companies have different business plans and different models I think if this cap were would be removed.

GENE KIMMELMAN: What we see predominantly is all these companies want to swap properties. They all have one broadcaster here, maybe a newspaper there, another broadcaster here. They don't have to buy a whole lot. They can swap equal value properties to get two or three stations, maybe a newspaper in the same community. Last year Fox bought a second local broadcast station in Chicago. They very quickly dumped all of the local programming off that station, including a top- rated educational programming channel, a program for children. Now that's because they have a different profit maximizing model. But that is not good for the community. It's not good for Chicago. It might have been good for Fox.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Let's talk for a moment, both of you, about the practical politics here. The FCC is five-member commission, three Republicans, two Democrats. Bob Okun, is this a foregone conclusion -- or close to it?

R. ROBERT OKUN: Well, this has been a rulemaking that's been in the process for about three years. Quite frankly I think Commissioner Kops, a Democrat on the commission, has been able to expand the process. We had a number of field hearings over the course of the year. That had a very salutary effect.

TERENCE SMITH: We should point out incidentally that the Democrats asked for a delay in this vote as did Democrats on the Hill and that just this evening, shortly before the broadcast, Chairman Powell said no. In other words, he said... Michael Powell, the chairman, said we're going to proceed on June 2.

R. ROBERT OKUN: My guess is they feel like they've gotten enough information whether it's via email or formal comments to the FCC that this is a pretty robust rulemaking. They have a lot of opinion on both sides of it. As I understand, there will probably be three votes for some sort of a combined compromise package. Obviously the Congress is overseeing this. There have been a number of hearings in the Senate and House Commerce Commercial committee on this. This is battling letters. Democrats sent a letter to say delay. A number of House Republican leaders sent a letter to say proceed. So at this point-- it's a political battle that's not over yet. You still have Congress to go after.

TERENCE SMITH: That's what I wanted to ask Gene Kimmelman for final words.

GENE KIMMELMAN: They have three votes. They're rushing it through. I wish Bob's network would put it on the air a few times. We get it in print. The networks don't really cover this issue and it's their own interest. A lot of local stations don't. Senator Snowe, Senator Allard, Senator Lott, all raised concerns about this. Republicans are waking up to the concerns about losing diversity and the ability to get their points of view out just as much as Democrats. The National Rifle Association is now concerned as much as we are concerned. This is about democratic process. It's about freedom of speech for the public to get the information it needs to be able to make decisions in our political system and in our local communities. We need enough separate, independent voices delivering the news, responding to public opinion in order to make our democracy function.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. I have to go, but thank you both, Bob Okun of NBC, Gene Kimmelman of the Consumers Union, thank you both very much.

R. ROBERT OKUN: My pleasure.

GENE KIMMELMAN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day: An FBI team arrived in Saudi Arabia, to aid in the investigation into Monday's suicide bombings. The U.S. indicted two fugitives from Yemen, in the attack on the U.S.S. "Cole" in October of 2000. And South Korean President Roh said the United States should compromise with North Korea. In an interview on the NewsHour he said North Korea might give up its nuclear weapons for security guarantees and economic aid. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.